One South Carolinian who grew up early in the twentieth century “did not learn that the South had lost the war until he was twelve years old. ‘It was one of the saddest awakenings I ever had,’” he recalled. Similarly, Margaret Mitchell remembered that she “heard so much about the fighting and hard times after the war that I firmly believed Mother and Father had been through it all instead of being born long afterward.” [141—42]

In the United States the continued influence of the old elite meant that southern politics fell under the domination of a Democratic Party that gloried the Confederacy, the Lost Cause, the Ku Klux Klan, and resistance to Reconstruction. White supremacy was made into the fundamental cause of the South, and racism became the tool to enforce white unity behind the Democratic Party whenever a political challenge arose. Another tactic used over and over again to maintain the Solid South was to warn against outside threats and outside agitators. The mentality of a defensive, isolated, but gallant South helped Democratic leaders to deflect attention from the problems of their society and the effects of their rule.

These powerful social currents, aided by women’s groups such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy, shaped and inhibited the region’s culture. Conformity to white supremacy, segregation, and Democratic Party rule was a social imperative for generations of southerners who were indoctrinated in the belief that they had suffered grave injustice with the defeat of their glorious Lost Cause. Had the diverse political leaders of so-called Radical Reconstruction continued to exercise some power or influence, the South would have been a very different society [187].

Distance from the troubled past is the product of economic and social change more than reflection or the mere passage of time, which may have little effect. To the extent that the basic circumstances of life remain unchanged, time becomes irrelevant; in fact, it may even deepen the hold of former attitudes, turning them into ancient truths. But as the foundations of social reality alter and the circumstances of daily life take on a new character, society can more easily accept hard truths and discard old controversies. It gains an ability to leave its past in the past and move into a different future.

[...] The desire of a few individuals to “overcome the past,” to rise above enmity and engage a different future after a destructive war, is laudable but rarely is achievable for an entire society. Substantial numbers of people will defend old positions or insist on the validity of their grievances, and the next generation may revive propaganda or condemn efforts to “forget.” Eventually, however, the world moves on, and changed realities allow acceptance of bitter truths about a troubled past. As progressively greater numbers acknowledge the past, historical wounds close, even those of bloody civil war [192—93].

On the Republican side, the emotional bonds of family launched a major social organization led by nietos, the Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory. Late in 2000 Emilio Silva and Santiago Macías began a personal search for the unmarked graves of their Republican ancestors.

[...] Descendants of executed Republicans told a journalist that “without the body, the pain never ceases.” “Never,” she reported, “have they spoken of vengeance, of revenge, or of anything that resembles that. In an exhumation, they never raise their eyes from the ground. They are not thinking of reopening wounds, but of closing, for once, their own.” This journalist, Natalia Junquera, also quoted a distinguished professor of psychiatry who said, “The hatred dies, it is extinguished, but the necessity of putting a name to the dead, of honoring them, no. There always comes a moment in which one has to put an end to this interminable trauma.” [63]

[Ж]одних двадцяти восьми героїв-панфіловців не було, їх усіх придумав журналіст Олександр Кривицький, якого я особисто знав як великого брехуна. [...] Він був фантазер не гірше нинішніх, а коли був би живим, охоче розповів би нам про двадцять вісім розіп'ятих хлопчиків.
[...]
— Гаразд, — сказав він, — ну, припустимо, все було, як ви кажете. Припустимо, двадцяти восьми панфіловців не було, але навіщо ви все це розповідаєте?

Я знизав плечима. Що ж тут незрозумілого? Народ же мусить знати правду, що і як було насправді.

— Дурниці це все, — сказав він. — Народ мусить знати. Та нічого він не мусить. І що цікавіше за все, не хоче він знати вашої правди. В світі ілюзій жити набагато цікавіше. І ваша справа, якщо ви письменник, не викривати давні міфи, а створювати нові [103].

It was not well to drive men into final corners; at those moments they could all develop teeth and claws.